So, Brave New World. A creepy, technological world, based on the ideals of unity and "one for all-ness". We all know this, but after reading Lyotard's theories, the novel shows many examples of his ideals...
Lyotard states in one of his theories on knowledge, "that no knowledge will survive that cannot be translated into computer language--into quantities of information". This statement is bold, but is very relevant to the ideas presented in Brave New World. The whole idea of creating people in mass, all being the same, is very disturbing to most. However, I think many people of this day in age could say, "Hey, that doesn't sound too bad. Why not?". And the reason is that we live in a day of technology. There are more e-mail accounts than social security numbers! Wow, right? And the reason why, is because technology is convienient. With an e-mail account, we can talk to people all over the world. Things such as texting make these things even more convenient. People want things to be easy in life; not have to worry about those kinds of things. Brave New World takes these conveniences to the extreme though. When everybody has a place and is always happy, all the time, there is nothing to worry about right? No emotions to deal with. No one wanting to move up in life, be better than what they are at the time. No worries because everything is technologically predictable. Although it may be easy and convenient, I'm not quite positive that that much technology is a good thing...
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Let's start back and to the future, shall we??
Okay, so Brave New World, beyond disturbing right?! But if you think about it, it's possible to see how this insane idea could come about...
Aldous Huxley, the author, was born in 1894 and the book was written in the thirties. The thirties! At this time, Henry Ford's automobiles were crawling through the cities and towns. Previous to this, people got around on horse and buggy, or walked! Far cry from the driving they were doing in the thirties. Along with these cars, came the assembly line. Perhaps one of the most ingenious ideas that hit the industrial world. I believe these happenings are what the novel revolves around...
So how? Well, perhaps Huxley saw the assembly line as a massive change for the worse. In the novel, the assembly line controls all of humanity. It literally creates life! Maybe Huxley is exaggerating on his idea of what Ford's revolution will do to the world. I don't think he thought that people will stop procreating, but it seems a big mataphor. A metaphor for how technology can be damaging to society as much as it can be beneficial. I think that the novel is a sort of ficticious warning...
When change comes around, there is a majority of people that are scared of it. People do not want to forget their past, especially if they have grown up doing things a certain way and now it all changes in a flash? I see this in the novel because Huxley makes a point of "writing out history". There are some parts in the novel when the characters give little hints of their knowledge of the past, "Human beings used to be... vivaporous... These are unpleasant facts; I know it. But then most historical facts are unpleasant," (pg. 24). It is obvious that, in the novel, the way humans are is very different from how they use to be. It is also obvious that the people of their world know nothing of their past. All they know is how things are now. Nothing but the assembly line and the "good" of technology. These little moment show that Huxley is trying to say something about history being important. I think he was afraid of people forgetting their past. Of only seeing change and forgetting everything else. Perhaps he wasn't totally opposed to the changes of his time, but I do think he was afraid that people would get carried away with them.
Aldous Huxley, the author, was born in 1894 and the book was written in the thirties. The thirties! At this time, Henry Ford's automobiles were crawling through the cities and towns. Previous to this, people got around on horse and buggy, or walked! Far cry from the driving they were doing in the thirties. Along with these cars, came the assembly line. Perhaps one of the most ingenious ideas that hit the industrial world. I believe these happenings are what the novel revolves around...
So how? Well, perhaps Huxley saw the assembly line as a massive change for the worse. In the novel, the assembly line controls all of humanity. It literally creates life! Maybe Huxley is exaggerating on his idea of what Ford's revolution will do to the world. I don't think he thought that people will stop procreating, but it seems a big mataphor. A metaphor for how technology can be damaging to society as much as it can be beneficial. I think that the novel is a sort of ficticious warning...
When change comes around, there is a majority of people that are scared of it. People do not want to forget their past, especially if they have grown up doing things a certain way and now it all changes in a flash? I see this in the novel because Huxley makes a point of "writing out history". There are some parts in the novel when the characters give little hints of their knowledge of the past, "Human beings used to be... vivaporous... These are unpleasant facts; I know it. But then most historical facts are unpleasant," (pg. 24). It is obvious that, in the novel, the way humans are is very different from how they use to be. It is also obvious that the people of their world know nothing of their past. All they know is how things are now. Nothing but the assembly line and the "good" of technology. These little moment show that Huxley is trying to say something about history being important. I think he was afraid of people forgetting their past. Of only seeing change and forgetting everything else. Perhaps he wasn't totally opposed to the changes of his time, but I do think he was afraid that people would get carried away with them.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Who died and made you king?!
First of all, I think Texas should take a chill pill... Of course we are all up to date on the "battle of the past", the whole "revision" of the U.S. history books. But on a side note, who all heard about Texas wanting to detach themselves from the U.S? I know, crazy right?!
Anywho, back to history... Is there anybody who can make a just decision on changing the history books? The conservatives are dead set that they are right, and the liberals are just as stubborn. Personally, I don't see how any extreme is the right choice. Too much to the left or right is really an unhealthy balance. And this game of tug of war is seriously annoying to me. Nobody is ever going to be happy unless their favored side wins. And to win tug of war, the losing side must be pulled on until they hit the ground and then dragged through the mud. That's what these extremists want! To have the other side not only lose, but to drag them in mud, for all to see how "unclean" and wrong they were.
Okay, so yea, our country was based on Christianity. Of course the history books should describe these faithful facts, but to dedicate an entire year of history to dwell on America's Christianity is a little too much. It's more than a little too much actually. Because instead of going to history class, the students will be going to Sunday school... Sunday school should remain on Sunday's in church, not in school. I know some of you are probably saying, well the schools won't be preaching, they will just be "informing". This may be true for a period of time, but eventually those who promote this history revision will be unhappy again. Its a vicious power trip. And like any "trip", people will want more and more of their "drug" to keep them satisfied. So soon enough, the classroom may just as well be a church if this complete revision is to happen.
And I'm not bashing on conservative Christians specifically, I'm just bashing on any power hungry extremist. This goes for the other side of the scale as well. As much as I think introducing minorities and giving light to some unmentioned Americans from the past would be beneficial, I also think too much of it can be equally unhealthy. Lifting up one race above all others is discrimination, I don't care how it is worded. So yes, both the founding principles of Christianity and contributing minorities should be found in America's history books, as balanced as we can get them to be.
Also, while I believe these contributing factors will allow for a more objective viewpoint, I think the idea of deleting historical figures from the texts is asinine. Who cares if a leader in history or even today is conservative or liberal?! Obviously not everybody in the world is going to agree with the actions of any leader. But that is no reason to write them out like they never existed! What? do they think that pretending like they were never there will take away the impact those leaders may have had on our nation? Whether the impacts are good or bad, they are important to our country. They have helped to shape who we are today, and by ignoring the past, the past may just repeat itself. Do you think that the Germans are proud of their Hitler past?! I'm sure a majority of them are not, but they aren't going to pretend like it never happened! Embracing our past and seeing things from all perspectives can be extremely beneficial to our country. Of course reaching a compromise on what to remember from our past may never be reached, but it must be attempted. Candy-coating America will not end sweetly.
Anywho, back to history... Is there anybody who can make a just decision on changing the history books? The conservatives are dead set that they are right, and the liberals are just as stubborn. Personally, I don't see how any extreme is the right choice. Too much to the left or right is really an unhealthy balance. And this game of tug of war is seriously annoying to me. Nobody is ever going to be happy unless their favored side wins. And to win tug of war, the losing side must be pulled on until they hit the ground and then dragged through the mud. That's what these extremists want! To have the other side not only lose, but to drag them in mud, for all to see how "unclean" and wrong they were.
Okay, so yea, our country was based on Christianity. Of course the history books should describe these faithful facts, but to dedicate an entire year of history to dwell on America's Christianity is a little too much. It's more than a little too much actually. Because instead of going to history class, the students will be going to Sunday school... Sunday school should remain on Sunday's in church, not in school. I know some of you are probably saying, well the schools won't be preaching, they will just be "informing". This may be true for a period of time, but eventually those who promote this history revision will be unhappy again. Its a vicious power trip. And like any "trip", people will want more and more of their "drug" to keep them satisfied. So soon enough, the classroom may just as well be a church if this complete revision is to happen.
And I'm not bashing on conservative Christians specifically, I'm just bashing on any power hungry extremist. This goes for the other side of the scale as well. As much as I think introducing minorities and giving light to some unmentioned Americans from the past would be beneficial, I also think too much of it can be equally unhealthy. Lifting up one race above all others is discrimination, I don't care how it is worded. So yes, both the founding principles of Christianity and contributing minorities should be found in America's history books, as balanced as we can get them to be.
Also, while I believe these contributing factors will allow for a more objective viewpoint, I think the idea of deleting historical figures from the texts is asinine. Who cares if a leader in history or even today is conservative or liberal?! Obviously not everybody in the world is going to agree with the actions of any leader. But that is no reason to write them out like they never existed! What? do they think that pretending like they were never there will take away the impact those leaders may have had on our nation? Whether the impacts are good or bad, they are important to our country. They have helped to shape who we are today, and by ignoring the past, the past may just repeat itself. Do you think that the Germans are proud of their Hitler past?! I'm sure a majority of them are not, but they aren't going to pretend like it never happened! Embracing our past and seeing things from all perspectives can be extremely beneficial to our country. Of course reaching a compromise on what to remember from our past may never be reached, but it must be attempted. Candy-coating America will not end sweetly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
